The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

Friday, January 17, 2014

Read the article in the original עברית Read the article in Italiano (translated by Yehudit Weisz, edited by Angelo Pezzana)Read the article en Español (translated by Shula Hamilton)

The
bottom line of all of these Internet effortsis that members of the royal
Saudi family are described by their foes as non-Muslims and as traitors
to Islam and its sacred affairs, such as having surrendered Palestine

One of the characteristics that define Middle Eastern culture is the importance with which
people relate to history and how historical matters - even those from distant history
- significantly influence the way affairs, and especially conflicts, are
conducted in the modern Middle East.

For comparison's sake, everyone knows what occurred in the Second World
War, but despite this, today - only seventy years later - Germany has reasonable
relations with Israel - the state of the Jewish People, as well as with France,
Poland, the Czech Republic, Russia, Britain and the United States, despite the history.
The reason for this is that people of Western culture have the capability, the desire and the necessary skills to close this problematic chapter and turn over a new, cleanleaf in the relations among them.

The ruling family of Saudi Arabia -
members of the Saud family - "take fire" from several directions

To a certain
extent Israel is different from Western culture: for thousands of
years we prayed to return to Zion, and now we have returned to it and to the sovereignty that we
had in ancient days. For us, history is alive and kicking, and if necessary,
killing as well. Also, the story with Germany is more complicated for us as Jews.

In the
Middle East, history has a decisive influence on daily matters, and today
Saudi Arabia is cruelly attacked in the media as a result ofthis. The ruling family of Saudi Arabia -
members of the Saud family - "take fire" from several directions:

From Saudis
who are not part of the ruling family (such as the family of bin Laden) and are
full of rage because of the Saud family's wealth, which is not shared with
othercitizens; from Shi'ites - those
who are Saudis and those who are not – that hate the Wahhabis who view Shi'a as a type of
heresy; from those who object to western culture and look with disfavor on the
Saudi's many years of collaboration with the United States and Europe,
especially in the area of energy and defense; from Islamic Purists, who know
very well how many members of the royal family behave in matters related to
sexuality, especially regarding "foreign workers" who come from
Europe.

All of
these factors join together to constitute a cruel and harsh media attack with the
goal of undermining the legitimacy of the royal Saudi family.

These
days, the Internet serves as the main arena for anti-Saudi propaganda, with
intensive use of information connected to Islamic history.

Things
are worse in Saudi Arabia. The members of the Saud family are accused of really
being descendants of the Jews by the name Khaybar, who lived in the desert
oasis near al-Medina until 623 CE

One of
the main things that anger the royal House of Saud's opposition is
the fact that King bin Saud named himself as "Keeper of the Holy
Places" despite the fact that he is not originally from the area of the
Hijaz, the western part of the peninsula, but from the elevated area of Najd,
which is in the center of the peninsula. Everyone knows that he took the title to
bestow on himself the legitimacy to rule, and to justify the removal of Sharif Hussein
and his sons, Abdullah and Faisal, whom the British found jobs for during the
"rich years", one as the prince of the Emirate on the other side of
the Jordan and the second as ruler of the Kingdom of Iraq. The king of Jordan's foes still ask, even now, "where did he come from and who brought
him here?" as a way to undermine his rule.

Things
are worse in Saudi Arabia. The members of the Saud family are accused of really
being descendants of the Jews by the name Khaybar, who lived in the desert
oasis near al-Medina until 623 CE. They refused to convert to Islam and tricked
Muhammad, so he slaughtered them. The Jewish forefather of the Sauds -
according to this claim - was named Mordechai. The Sauds, being Jews, forged
their lineage, pretended to be Muslims and now act unceasingly against
Islam and its holy places.

One of
the activists in the area of "exposing" the crimes of the Saud family
uses the name Khaled al-Abdali. Khaled means "eternal", and Abdali
means "the son of Abdullah". The concatenation means Muhammad - the
prophet of Islam - himself, because the character is eternal and his father's name is Abdullah.

Khaled
al-Abdali wrote an article entitled "The Criminal Case of the Sons of
Mordechai, the Sons of Saud: the Destruction of the Holy Places and the Falsification
of the Family Lineage". In this article, which is travels freely around
the Internet, he writes (my comments in parentheses, M.K.): "The sons of
Saud destroyed the house where the prophet Muhammad was born; the house of his
wife (Khadija the daughter of Khuwaylid, the first wife who believed in him and
his mission to humanity, M.K.); the house of Abu Bakr (the first man that believed in
Muhammad and the first Caliph, M.K.); the house where Fatima (Muhammad's only
daughter, mother of the Shi'ite leader, M.K.) was born; the house of Hamza ibn Abd
al-Muttalib (the prophet's uncle and the first martyr in Islam, M.K.); the house that
Ali (the founder of Shi'a, M.K.) and the sons of Hasan and Hussein were born in; the
house of al-Arqam, the house where Muhammad would meet secretly with his
friends-believers, where Amar (the second Caliph, M.K.) accepted Islam, and where the
first call to prayer was heard; and the cemeteries of the prophet’s family and his
close friends who were killed in jihad. The Saud family stole the gold that was
inside the Green Dome and turned it into daggers, swords and buckles to tie
their wives belts and to hide their privates, to slippers, shoes, rings, bracelets and chains, all of it from looted gold".

I,
Sultan abd
al-Aziz bin abd al-Rahman bin Saud, express my full agreement to Mr.
Percy Cox, the representative of Great Britain, to grant Palestine to
the unfortunate
Jews or to others, as Great Britain sees fit, and that I accept that
decision
forever and ever."

The
writer accuses the Saud family of intending to erase the history of the Arabs
by ruining their historic buildings, so that only the name of Saud will remain
forever in the Arabian Peninsula. To this end they have invested great efforts
and money in order to forge a family tree as "proof" that they are
descendants of the prophet. The forgery of the family tree proves - in the
writer's opinion - the fact that they in fact are Jews.

This
matter relates to the claim that the founder of the kingdom, ibn Saud, surrendered
Palestine to the Jews. The newspaper al-Shab, which speaks in the name of the
Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, presented a hand-written note last August that
reads: "in the name of Allah the merciful and compassionate. I, Sultan abd
al-Aziz bin abd al-Rahman bin Saud, express my full agreement to Mr. Percy Cox, the representative of Great Britain, to grant Palestine to the unfortunate
Jews or to others, as Great Britain sees fit, and that I accept that decision
forever and ever."

The
matter resonated widely this year, after Abd
al-Fatakh al-Sisi, the Egyptian minister of defense, removed president Muhammad Mursi,
of the Muslim Brotherhood, from power in the beginning of July. Afterward, Sisi declared the Muslim
Brotherhood to be illegal, defined the organization as a terror organization and
stood its leaders to trial. Saudi Arabia openly supports Sisi and the steps that he takes against the Brotherhood, which is why the newspaper al-Shab, which expresses
the Brotherhood's stance, accuses the founder of the Saudi kingdom of
supporting the establishment of the State of Israel.

There
are writers who accuse the royal house of naming Saudi Arabia for the father of
the family, as if the kingdom belongs to the family and not to its people.

Using image editing software like Photoshop, people upload illustrations of King
Abdullah to the Internet as a dog, monkey or pig.

Graphic
arts are also enlisted in the Internet to undermine ibn Saud's legitimacy.
People upload photographs of King Abdullah, even from the time when he was
crown prince, where he is hugging western leaders, especially George W. Bush. In
some of them - perhaps by using image editing software - Abdullah is shown with a goblet in his hand, and the impression is created that Abdullah was
drinking alcoholic beverages with Bush, which is forbidden according to Islam.

Using image editing software like Photoshop, people upload illustrations of King
Abdullah to the Internet as a dog, monkey or pig. This connects to the claim
that the members of the Saud family are descendants of Jews, who are described
in Islamic tradition as the "sons of monkeys and pigs". In other
areas a Star of David is combined with a photograph of King Abdullah, in order
to emphasize his supposed Jewishness.

There
are writers on the Internet who emphasize the non-traditional aspect of the
royal Saudi family, especially their alleged trend to hire
European women in their palaces. There are those who upload photographs of the palaces of the royal family to the Internet in order to show their ostentatious
wealth.

Seventy years of
the rule of a tyrant is preferable to one night of anarchy

The
bottom line of all of these Internet efforts- and only a small part is presented here - is that members of the royal
Saudi family are described by their foes as non-Muslims and as traitors
to Islam and its sacred affairs, such as having surrendered Palestine.

The
Saudi regime does not remain silent.Religious figures who work under its auspices incessantly issue
religious rulings that validate the regime of ibn Saud, and accuse their
opposition of inciting terror and slandering Islam. They enlist Islamic sources
such as the saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad: "Seventy years of
the rule of a tyrant is preferable to one night of anarchy". The anarchy
in Iraq and Syria - in which the Saudis have a significant part in creating -
proves the justice of their claim. According to this approach, even though the
Saudi regime is not perfect, it is still preferable to the bloodbath that would occur in the country if the House of Saud falls.

It
doesn't seem to me that the de-legitimization campaign presents a threat to the
Saudi regime in the foreseeable future, because it maintains itself well and
takes care of its enemies and its opposition without being hampered by the courts
or human rights organizations. Nevertheless, apparently this campaign will have
implications if and when the kingdom experiences turbulence, especially with the
disappearance of bin Abd al-Aziz's generation and the transfer of the kingdom's
rule to the next generation.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar(Mordechai.Kedar@biu.ac.il) is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and
Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the
Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University,
Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political
discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic
arena.

Source: The article is published in the framework of the Center
for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan
University, Israel. Also published in Makor Rishon, a Hebrew weekly newspaper.

Days
after burying former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel now must
return its attention to the dilemma of whether to relinquish control of
strategic West Bank territories that Sharon himself ordered the IDF to
seize over a decade ago.In March 2002, a Palestinian suicide bomber walked into a hotel in Netanya and blew up a dining hall hosting a Passover holiday celebration, in an attack that murdered 30 civilians. It became known as the Passover Massacre.

The horrific bombing represented the peak of a Palestinian campaign
of indiscriminate violence that ultimately claimed the lives of more
than 1,000 Israelis, most of them civilians. It was Sharon, prime
minister of Israel at the time, who successfully quashed the Palestinian
killing spree.

Two days after the Passover Massacre, Sharon consulted army brass,
called up 30,000 reserves, and ordered the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)
to enter deep into West Bank cities (vacated by Israel in the 1990s as
part of the Oslo peace process).

The army was instructed to destroy the hornet's nests of terrorist
activities that developed in inner city regions of Nablus, Jenin, Tul
Karem, Ramallah, Bethlehem, and Hebron. Twenty nine Israeli soldiers
were killed in the house-to-house urban warfare that ensued, and
hundreds were wounded, but the operation dealt a major blow to
Palestinian terrorism.

After seizing control of West Bank cities, Sharon ordered the
construction of the security fence, while Israel's domestic intelligence
service, the Shin Bet, strengthened its grip on Palestinian
territories. These combined measures meant that in 2005, three years
after the operation, Israel suffered 57 casualties from Palestinian
violence, compared with 452 in 2002, according to Shin Bet figures.

Ten years on, in 2012, not a single Israeli lost his or her life in
attacks in the West Bank, or attacks that stemmed from it, a first since
1973. In 2013, a limited resurgence in terrorism saw five Israelis
killed – in Israel and the West Bank – by attackers who came from these
territories.

Today, Secretary of State John Kerry is putting the full force of his
weight behind a peace initiative which has seen Israel and the
Palestinian Authority engaged in negotiations behind closed doors, aimed
at the establishment of a Palestinian state and ensuring vital Israeli
security needs.

According to some reports, Kerry's plans include provisions
for Israeli drones and other surveillance means to monitor the West
Bank remotely, and for a fence to be built along the Jordan Valley.

While many doubts linger over whether the talks will lead anywhere,
Israel would be expected to take a significant risk in order for any
breakthrough to occur, gradually relinquishing its access to the same
Palestinian areas that sent forth suicide bombers to the heart of Israel
in the last decade. The traumatic memory of those bloody days remains
seared in the Israeli collective psyche.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad, behind many of those deadly attacks, are
based in Gaza, where they are constructing a rocket base that threatens
southern and central Israel, while the Palestinian Authority governs
over 95% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank.

The IDF is no longer positioned in the center of Palestinian
Authority cities, but does launch regular counter-terrorism raids in
them, to take out developing terrorist cells that, and make arrest
suspects. That freedom of operation would be curtailed in a potential
agreement.

What might happen should Israel leave these territories? First, Hamas
may grow powerful in the West Bank, to the point that it would threaten
to topple the Fatah government and overrun Fatah security positions,
just as it did in Gaza in 2007.

Just this week, Israeli security officials announced that they had broken up a plot by Hamas operatives already in prison to recruit West Bank residents to kidnap Israeli soldiers.

Secondly, Palestinian cities could become rocket manufacturing and
launch sites. Hamas and Islamic Jihads cells would be able to strike
Israel's coastal plain, where the majority of the Israeli population
resides, paralyzing national strategic sites like Ben Gurion Airport,
and terrorizing the lives of millions of residents of greater Tel Aviv.

Iran could be expected to do its utmost to assist its Palestinian proxy, Islamic Jihad, to realize this scenario.

Such a development would undoubtedly trigger a new Israeli Operation
Defensive Shield – the post-Passover Massacre offensive – and likely
signal the collapse of any peace deal.

And yet, some in Israel argue that remaining in the West Bank is
equally, if not more dangerous, since it threatens the idea of a Jewish
majority state in clearly defined borders, and could ultimately create a
de-facto binational state.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spoken of his desire not to
turn millions of Palestinians into Israeli subjects, and stressed his
commitment to a two-state solution, repeatedly mentioning his wish to
avoid the binational threat.

There are indications
that Sharon was, in 2005, contemplating a decision to leave two thirds
of the West Bank, having already vacated Israeli communities in the
northern West Bank during his exit from Gaza in 2005.

Sharon spoke of "painful compromises," while calling on the Palestinian Authority to quash terrorism.

What would it take to convince the current Israeli leadership that
the time has arrived to take this risk for peace? According to
statements made recently by Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, the
cessation of Palestinian incitement to hatred and violence would be just
such a sign – and there is no reason to expect this sign to appear any
time soon.

Ya'alon was frank
about the fact that he has already rejected Kerry's proposals. "When
I'm told about the security answer in Judea and Samaria, and when they
talk about satellites, drones, and technologies, I say, 'Guys, you're
wrong.' The principal problem is education. If in Nablus and Jenin they
continue to educate the young generation as it is being educated today,
to idolize terrorism and jihad, and that the Jewish people have no right
to this land, if this is how they're educated, then technology stops
nothing. If the education does not change, we'll have the same pressure
from the inside. And then there will be a Hamastan in Judea and Samaria,
like in Gaza. It'll hurt us, it'll hurt Jordan, and it'll hurt other
interests in the area."

Ya'alon also stated in recent weeks that he believes Israel has no viable peace partner.

"There is no one on the other side, there hasn't been, since the dawn
of Zionism, a leadership that is prepared to recognize our right to
exist as a nation-state for the Jewish nation and to recognize an
agreement as the end of the conflict and the end to demands. We won't
talk about an inch, about a millimeter of territory, if we don't see
that we have a partner who talks about recognition, about the end of the
conflict and about giving up the right of return," Ya'alon vowed in
December.

Referring to the PLO's plan, formulated in 1974, to destroy Israel
gradually, he added: "We will not implement the doctrine of stages."

Under the current conditions, then, the government of Israel assesses
that the time for such risks has not yet arrived. It nevertheless feels
compels to take part in the talk, due to U.S. pressure.

Underpinning this assessment is the fact that the vast majority of
Palestinians live under a PA government, deal with Palestinian security
forces on a daily basis, and have a Palestinian parliament and
president. In essence, a Palestinian political entity already exists in
the West Bank, albeit one which continues to pose a threat to Israeli
security.

This reality would appear to preclude an Israeli withdrawal at this
time. A change of conditions on the ground that shows Palestinians can
prevent terrorists from proliferating in the West Bank would likely
prompt Israel's leadership to seek a withdrawal, clearing the path for a
two-state solution.

Yaakov Lappin is the Jerusalem Post's military and national security affairs correspondent, and author of The Virtual Caliphate (Potomac Books), which proposes that jihadis on the internet have established a virtual Islamist state.

Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/4268/will-israel-risk-sharon-counter-terrorismCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

On
Tuesday, the Iranian government announced that it had reached a secret
agreement with the West on its nuclear development. The details of the
agreement were not released, but suffice it to say that the Iranians
could not contain their glee. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani
celebrated the deal with an English-language tweet claiming that the
“world powers surrendered to Iranian nation’s will”; Iranian Army
Commander Maj. Gen. Ayatollah Salehi said the diplomatic breakthrough
resulted from American military “weakness”; and the Iranian foreign
minister laid a wreath at the tomb of the Beirut Marine barracks bomber.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama urged the United States Congress to
“give peace a chance.” After weeks of sending out his pacifist minions,
including faux pro-Israel group J Street, to tell Americans that
support for sanctions meant support for war, Obama himself echoed that
message. “My preference is for peace and diplomacy,” the apparent
flower-child-in-chief stated. “And this is one of the reasons why I’ve
sent the message to Congress that now is not the time for us to impose
new sanctions. Now is the time for us to allow the diplomats and
technical experts to do their work.” He said that a rational, reasonable
Iran would be “willing to walk through the door of opportunity that’s
presented to them.”

Only Iran is not rational or reasonable. It is delusionally
anti-Western and anti-Semitic, which means that America is now in
negotiations not just with a terror-supporting state but radicals with
more than a hint of insanity.

To prove this point, on Sunday, the Iranian semiofficial news agency
FARS, which bills itself as independent but is effectively regime-run,
ran a news article explaining that since the end of World War II,
America had been run by a shadow government of Nazi space aliens.
Seriously.

Basing its report on documents supposedly culled from National
Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, FARS reported that there was no
“incontrovertible proof” that the American foreign policy agenda was
driven by an “alien/extraterrestrial intelligence agenda.”

Not “alien” as in foreigner. “Alien” as in little green men from
Mars. FARS quotes Snowden as stating that there “were actually two
governments in the U.S., one that was elected, and the other, secret
regime, governing in the dark.” This shadow regime had been run by space
aliens — also known as “Tall Whites” — who were operating their regime
from Nevada after emigrating from Nazi Germany after World War II. These
space aliens, FARS stated, built the Nazi war machine’s submarines.

This would be hilarious were it not part of a piece. Large swaths of
the Islamic world also buy the myth that Jews use the blood of
non-Jewish children in both their Passover matza and Purim hamentashen.
“The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” remains a best-seller throughout
the Islamic world. Iranian television routinely broadcasts Holocaust
denial, while Iranian press outlets proclaim that the Zionist regime is
producing another Hitler.

Assume for a moment that the Iranian regime actually believes the
propaganda it spouts. Why, then, would it negotiate in good faith with
space alien Nazis who drink Muslim blood?

Many pacifists in the West, including Obama, apparently assume that
no one rational would continue to develop nuclear weapons in the face of
world opposition, especially when offered a way out. What Obama fails
to recognize is that Iran is far from rational — and, more importantly,
Obama’s own assumptions about Iranian intentions put America and the
West in a position of weakness. This weakness will be on display for all
the world to see when Iran goes nuclear.Ben Shapiro Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/the-dangerously-irrational-iranian-regime/Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

On
Sunday it was announced that a deal had been reached to implement the
interim agreement with Iran on suspending its nuclear program. Since the
agreement was negotiated late last year, the ground has been laid in
the media for the acceptance of the lifting of sanctions on the Tehran
regime. The aim has been to reduce the public perception of Iran as a
threat and perhaps even promote it as an ally. The most open espousal of
such a realignment of American policy in the Middle East was presented on the front page of the New York Times
on January 7, written by Thomas Erdbrink and datelined Tehran. Titled,
"U.S. and Iran Face Common Enemies in Mideast Strife" the theme was to
shift attention from Iran as a state-supporter of terrorism in the
region to al-Qaeda as the main enemy of U.S. interests.

As
Erdbrink put it, "While the two governments quietly continue to pursue
their often conflicting interests, they are being drawn together by
their mutual opposition to an international movement of young Sunni
fighters, who with their pickup trucks and Kalashnikovs are raising the
black flag of Al Qaeda along sectarian fault lines in Syria, Lebanon,
Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen." Clearly, the Shiite regime in Iran is
concerned with the surge in Sunni insurgencies in Syria, Lebanon, and
Iraq against its sectarian allies, but why is this a "common" concern
for the United States? The U.S. alliance system in the Middle East is
based on the Sunni states, from Turkey to Egypt and Jordan and Kuwait to
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. Turkey is on the front line of the
Syrian civil war where the Saudis and Gulf states are funding the Sunni
rebels.

Iran,
with its large population, oil wealth, expansionist ambitions, support
for Hizb'allah, and an active nuclear weapons program, poses a threat to
the region far beyond what al-Qaeda can muster. Al-Qaeda is one of
several factions fighting for the Sunni cause against the Shia.
Washington should enjoy the irony that al-Qaeda is shedding blood
fighting in alignment with American allies against the common Iranian
foe. Like the eight-year Iran-Iraq War during the Reagan administration,
which foreshadowed today's larger sectarian conflict, keeping enemy
forces engaged elsewhere lessens their ability to take action against
the U.S.

Iran
also poses the greatest threat to Israel. A nuclear-armed Tehran regime
is an existential danger of the first order. Even if that potential
risk is avoided, the presence of Hizb'allah on Israel's border is a
constant menace. The Sunni-Shia confrontation has, however, provided a
basis for security cooperation between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

The
spread of the conflict into Iraq is being used to shift American public
opinion in favor of Iran and is allies. Erdbrink reported that "Iran
offered to join the United States in sending military aid to the Shiite
government in Baghdad, which is embroiled in street-to-street fighting
with radical Sunni militants in Anbar Province, a Sunni stronghold."
From Fox News to The New Republic, stories have appeared from
American veterans who fought against Sunni insurgents in Anbar in the
wake of news that an al-Qaeda linked group has seized control of parts
of city of Fallujah. For the left, this is proof that the Iraq War was
not worth the effort. The truth is more complex, but it is hard not to
conclude that both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations
lost their focus on the strategic object in Iraq, which was regime
change from a hostile leader to a friendly one.

The
U.S. sent an army to Baghdad in 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein who
had gone mad after his invasion of Kuwait had been repulsed by a
U.S.-led coalition in 1991. Getting rid of Saddam, however, was not
enough. The regime had to be changed to one with which Washington could
work as an ally. Yet, even with 150,000 soldiers in Iraq, the U.S.
allowed a new leader to take power who was hostile to American strategic
interests. That man was Nouri al-Maliki who became prime minister in
2006.

While
in exile, Maliki lived first in Syria then moved to Iran in 1982 where
he stayed until 1990 when he moved back to Syria. Maliki is a Shiite who
won his current position with the support of pro-Iranian radicals in
parliament, including the bloc led by Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army
often fought against U.S. forces. Maliki, following the demands of
Tehran, refused to allow U.S. forces a residual presence after Obama
fulfilled his campaign pledge to remove all American combat units from
Iraq. As soon as the last U.S. troops were gone, Maliki purged Sunni
Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, who fled first to the Kurdistan
province of Iraq and then to Turkey. On September 9, 2012, Hashemi was
sentenced in absentia to death by hanging.

It
was Maliki who opened the domestic offensive against the Sunni
community, reopening the sectarian conflict that the U.S. had worked so
hard to end during the military "surge" and the "awakening" political
movement. Washington had persuaded Sunni leaders to turn on the
"foreign" al-Qaeda by promising that they would get a fair deal in a
democratic Iraq. Maliki broke that promise. The Sunni are now fighting
for their survival against a Shiite autocracy backed by Iran. Al-Qaeda
has taken the opportunity to rebuild its presence in Iraq as it has done
in the Syrian civil war. Indeed, the Sunni-Shia battle line now cuts
across both countries. The United States has no theological dog in the
Sunni-Shia fight, but it does have interests to protect. These favor the
Sunni faction in the current strategic situation in the Middle East.

An
agreement with Iran which would lead to the lifting of economic
sanctions would give the Tehran regime the boost it needs in the Syrian
and Iraq battles. The sanctions have started to bite, stirring up
dissent at home as well as weakening the resources Iran can devote to
foreign adventures. When Erdbrink wrote that "With Iran as an island of
stability in a region plagued by violent protests, sectarian clashes and
suicide bombers, there are not that many options left for Washington,
experts here say" he was talking through his hat. Iran is not an island
of stability, as shown by the protests following the stolen 2009
elections which had to be quelled by mass executions.

The
United States still holds the balance of power in support of the
stronger regional alliance system. It is Iran that is under pressure and
isolated on the ground in the region, even if it has Russian and
Chinese diplomatic support in the nuclear talks. Washington has the
money, expertise, and weapons to build groups that can fight for
influence in Syria and Iraq against both Iran's puppets and al-Qaeda if
it has the will to do so. The U.S. also has the military capability to
disrupt Iran's nuclear program. Yet, the Obama administration has
wavered in its efforts and Congress is drifting into an isolationist
stance as shown by its indifference to events in Syria.

A
deal with Iran would give cover to further withdrawal from the area,
which is why U.S. allies from Israel to Saudi Arabia are opposed to the
Iranian negotiations. Dictatorships are adept at exploiting "war weary"
democracies. The mullahs in Tehran will never slacken in their plans to
dominate the region nor waver in their hatred of the "Great Satan"
America. U.S. policy must remain committed to blocking Iran's ambitions
as its top priority in the region.

William R. HawkinsSource: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/should_america_realign_with_iran.htmlCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

It is interesting how one comment
from an Israeli minister has managed to strain relations between the
U.S. Administration and Israel, while fiery rhetoric and street
demonstrations against Kerry and Obama in the Palestinian territories
and Arab capitals are completely ignored by Washington.

The U.S. Administration has reacted quickly and strongly to statements attributed to Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon. Ya'alon was quoted by the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronot as describing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as "messianic and obsessive."

Israel's
Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon greets U.S. Secretary of State John
Kerry in Israel, May 2013. (Image source: U.S. State Department)

But while the U.S. Administration has been quick in issuing a
response to the Israeli minister's statements, it continues to ignore
remarks and demonstrations against Kerry made by Palestinians and other
Arabs.

Palestinian officials representing various organizations, including
the Palestinian Authority, have been denouncing Kerry almost on a daily
basis over the past few weeks. But these condemnations do not seem to
bother the State Department.

Among the officials who have been extremely critical of Kerry's role
in the current Israeli-Palestinian peace talks is Yasser Abed Rabbo, the
PLO's Secretary-General and one of the closest advisors to Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Just last month, Abed Rabbo launched a scathing attack on Kerry,
denouncing his latest proposals as unacceptable. "Kerry does not have
the right to decide where our borders will be," the top PLO official said. "If the U.S. wants, it can give parts of California or Washington to Israel. Kerry's framework agreement is very dangerous."

Abed Rabbo has also accused
Kerry of seeking to "appease Israel by fulfilling its expansionist
demands in the Jordan Valley under the pretext of security. He wants to
buy Israeli silence over the Iran deal (with the six big powers)."

Palestinian officials have also been leaking details about Kerry's
latest proposals for reaching an agreement between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority. Some have gone as far as accusing Kerry of being
biased in favor of Israel, working toward "liquidating" the Palestinian
cause and trying to extort the Palestinians.

Tayseer Khaled, member of the PLO Executive Committee, was recently quoted
as accusing Kerry of trying to extort the Palestinians politically.
Khaled's allegations have since been repeated by other Palestinians.

In addition, anti-Kerry demonstrations
have become a common phenomenon in Ramallah and other Palestinian
cities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. At some of these protests, Kerry
is often condemned as a pawn in the hands of Israel.

At another protest in Ramallah, Palestinians chanted, "Oh Kerry, you coward, you have no room in Palestine."

In Bethlehem several weeks ago, Palestinians took to the streets to protest against Kerry's visit to the city. And when President Barack Obama visited Bethlehem last year, Palestinians hurled shoes at his portrait and chanted, and set fire to his photograph.

Anti-Kerry protests have also taken place in Egypt and Jordan, where protesters also torched his portrait and declared him persona non grata.

Why, then, Kerry is not just as offended by the Arab condemnations?

It is interesting to see how one comment from an Israeli minister has
managed to strain relations between the U.S. Administration and Israel,
while fiery rhetoric and street demonstrations against Kerry and Obama
in the Palestinian territories and Arab capitals are completely ignored
by Washington. If Kerry really cares about the peace process, he also
needs to ask the Palestinian Authority and Arab governments to lower the
tone and stop inciting against him and the U.S. Unless, of course,
those statements and protests do not offend him.

The
liberal moaning and wailing has begun. The circumstances of the
referendum on Egypt's new constitution, the crackdown on the Muslim
Brotherhood, and what appears to be the impending crackdown on Hamas have produced calls for "inclusion" and "democratic norms," and the denunciation of the military-backed government. TIME Magazine intones, "Egyptians are Voting Away their Freedom." The Washington Post called for a suspension of U.S. military aid to Egypt over its "bogus democracy."

That's
a rather high hand. What if Egypt doesn't have a "bogus democracy,"
but an insurgency that needs redress? What if, to Egyptians, the Muslim
Brotherhood resembles the Taliban more than it does the Democratic
Party of the United States? Remember, the Taliban wasn't entirely
unwelcome in Afghanistan in the chaos of the Russian withdrawal. What
if Egyptians are driven by the specter of Libyan militias, Iraqi
dissolution, Syrian civil war, and the wreckage produced by a single
year of Muslim Brotherhood rule? What if Egyptians value perceived
security over what they understand about democracy?

If
they're wrong or benighted, at a minimum it helps to see their context,
rather than arrogantly trying and failing to replace it with our
own. This is why "nation-building" fails.

The
magic word "democracy" falls out of the mouths of pundits. AEI's
Danielle Pletka simply dismissed the referendum as the end of Egypt's democratic experiment. Michelle Dunne, Senior Associate of the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment, plowed through the laundry list:

There
is a real danger that international players will lend legitimacy to a
flawed and undemocratic process. They risk playing into the Egyptian
transitional government's efforts to focus attention on the
technicalities of the post-coup political road map while diverting
notice from a deeply troubling context -- widespread unrest, the recent declaration of the Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt's largest political group) as a terrorist organization, escalating repression of secular dissidents, a draft constitution that gives the military broad powers, a drafting process that largely excluded Islamists, effectively no freedom for those who would campaign against passage of the referendum. And the likelihood of ongoing protests during the referendum, as well as of violent attacks against government targets, is high.

The
U.S. government has provided 15 official readouts over six months, each
with a similar set of messages to Sissi: Try to be less repressive and
more inclusive... With each passing month, the readouts become more
surreal, with Hagel asking what has become one of the region's more
brutal, repressive regimes to be "democratic." Although there are
certainly competitors -- Syria and Israel-Palestine come to mind -- it
is difficult to think of another case where U.S. policy is so completely
divorced from realities on the ground.

It
is unclear how "inclusive" anyone should be of the Muslim Brotherhood,
an organization whose credo is "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our
law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and dying in the way
of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."

Hamas,
the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood, is designated a terrorist
organization by the U.S. government. The Brotherhood is stoking riots,
blowing things up, and expecting/hoping to bring a heavy Egyptian police
response down on its people in the streets -- remember that part about
jihad and dying. This is a favorite tactic of Hamas. They fire rockets
into Israeli towns, aiming at houses, schools, and buses. When
retaliation finally ensues, Hamas (and much of the rest of the world)
blames Israel.

This
is not the debt ceiling debate; it is politics as a blood sport, with
emphasis on blood. What we call "partisan rancor" can get you killed,
and in that context, a "democratic election" cannot take place. A
winner-take-all referendum is the likely outcome, and everyone
understands what losing means. The disastrous 2006 Hamas/Fatah election
in Gaza led directly to the short and brutal Palestinian civil war. No
election has taken place in Gaza or on the West Bank, because both
sides fear the result.

Now consider Hamid's throwaway mention of "Israel-Palestine" as a competitor to Egypt as a "brutal repressive regime."

There
is no such place as "Israel-Palestine." Israel is a free and
democratic country. It has a free press, an aggressively independent
judiciary, multiple political parties, a track record of elections on
time and with changes in parties at the helm, open internet access,
property rights, civil rights, and personal rights including gay
marriage. The Palestinian Authority, after 20-plus years of governing,
has no such attributes. The government is years late on both
legislative and presidential elections. Multiple security forces are
controlled by political parties or individuals. There is no independent
judiciary, no financial transparency (even the EU was shocked
recently when it discovered in an audit the extent of the theft of
European aid money by the PA), no rule of law, no civil rights, and no
free press.

This
is why there is no Israeli-Palestinian "peace." One side is bound by
its people; the other is not. A democracy would consider itself further
bound by norms that a thuggish kleptocracy would not. A treaty between
them would not command equal allegiance, hence Israel keeps looking for
additional mechanisms that would keep it self-reliant rather
than relying on either the Palestinians or the "international
community." The Palestinian Authority keeps looking for ways to avoid a
deal that will result in another Palestinian civil war.

Policy
wonks, enamored as they are of their own democratic norms, want
everyone to play by the same rules that have worked so well for us. But
when they look at Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and the Palestinian
Authority, none has the prerequisites for a democratic system, and none
is out of the "you kill me, or I'll kill you" stage of political
discourse. There is, most importantly, no concept of "the loyal
opposition," and the assurance of multiple elections so that if you lose
this time you might win later.

It
isn't nice to say so, but our norms don't apply. They won't be
democratic, and we can't make them. So between stability produced by
the heavy hand of a secular government and the chaos that has attended
the demise of such governments elsewhere, it won't be surprising if
Egyptians vote for the constitution and support the al Sissi
government. The best the U.S. can do in that case is help ensure that
Egyptians continue to get chances to register their views periodically
while working to tame the baser instincts of their leadership.

It's not much, but for Egypt, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere, it beats what they've got.